What do you think?
Rate this book
The New Golden Bough
The classic study which relates magic and religion to the institutions and folk customs on which they are based
256 pages, Hardcover
Published June 28, 1959
7 people are currently reading
77 people want to read
About the author
James George Frazer
684 books329 followersSir James George Frazer was a Scottish social anthropologist influential in the early stages of the modern studies of mythology and comparative religion. His most famous work, The Golden Bough (1890), documents and details the similarities among magical and religious beliefs around the globe. Frazer posited that human belief progressed through three stages: primitive magic, replaced by religion, in turn replaced by science.
He was married to the writer & translator Lilly Grove (Lady Frazer)
He was married to the writer & translator Lilly Grove (Lady Frazer)
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
January 17, 2023
Sir James George Frazer (1854-1941) has been called, by Theories of Primitive Religion author E. E. Evans-Pritchard, "the best-known name in anthropology." His monumental The Golden Bough, which in its unabridged form eventually ran to 12 volumes plus an index volume, is a widely-read, landmark classic of early modern theorizing that purports to "explain" religion, via the "scientific" (or, at least, pseudo-scientific) study of its primitive forms, as the purely human invention of extremely ignorant, naive and unsophisticated minds. This 1950 abridgement by well-known Orientalist, folklorist and Dead Sea Scrolls translator Theodore H. Gaster boils the essential content of the original down to one volume, numbered the paragraphs to cross-reference them to Frazer's own source notes (which are appended to each section), and added his own "Additional Notes," also appended section by section, some of which present his own or other scholars' critiques or questioning of aspects of Frazer's theory. Gaster's aim was to make the basic content more accessible to readers who find the original dozen volumes daunting (I'm included in that group; although I normally prefer full-text originals over abridgements, in this case I preferred to get the condensed version, and would probably never have attempted to read the original).
Organized into broad topical sections that purportedly describe world-wide patterns of magical and religious beliefs and practices, Fraser illustrates each of these by reference to massive amounts of supposed examples, drawn from various primitive cultures from virtually all parts of the world. The sheer number of these, and the colorful nature of many of them, make the book quite interesting, and even fascinating in many places. A significant weakness of this approach, though, is that none of this material is drawn from actual field study. While Fraser had made trips to Italy and Greece, that was the extent of his travels. Whatever knowledge of primitive peoples he had was derived either from secondary sources, from older primary sources such as ancient Greek and Roman historians or early folklorists like the Brothers Grimm and Sir Walter Scott, and especially from questionnaires sent to missionaries and British colonial officials. In no case did any of these sources make a serious study of any of the phenomena he was describing in its cultural and social context. This makes Frazer's obvious erudition much less useful for his purpose than he imagined.
The drawbacks of this work at the theoretical, explanatory level grow out of the empirical weakness. Frazer's explanations of the supposed "reason" for any given practice are exercises in armchair speculations invariably based on what Evans-Pritchard (whose own study --which I read about a year after this one, and which I highly recommend to readers interested in this subject-- is highly critical of the work of Frazer and several other writers of his ilk) rightly characterizes as the "if I were a horse" fallacy. That is, the logic runs something like, "Well, if I were a horse [or a "primitive man"], I would do the kind of things horses [or "primitive men"} do for X reason(s); ergo, that's obviously why they do them." (Frazer and his contemporary colleagues, of course, were neither horses nor primitive men, and they were pretty much equally as clueless about how to enter into the mind of one as the other.) A related problem is the assumption that once we determine (or at least ascribe) an origin and meaning to any symbol or practice in one culture, then it can be taken as an automatic given that any similar symbol or practice in widely disparate cultures necessarily has essentially the same origin and meaning in every one of them. (It can't be automatically taken so, in my opinion.) I could voice a lot of other quibbles about speculative interpretations that aren't nearly as self-evident as Frazer thinks they are, such as his theory that the mock "slayings" of pseudo-sacrificial figures in certain cults in historical times were always vestigial survivals of real sacrifices in prehistoric times (rather than having been mock enactments of seasonal vegetative "deaths" and "resurrections" from the get-go).
This book is important reading for any academic student, or deeply interested lay reader, in the fields of cultural anthropology, primitive religion(s), or the history of 20th-century social science. But it should not be taken uncritically as a definitive guide to reality in any one of those fields.
Organized into broad topical sections that purportedly describe world-wide patterns of magical and religious beliefs and practices, Fraser illustrates each of these by reference to massive amounts of supposed examples, drawn from various primitive cultures from virtually all parts of the world. The sheer number of these, and the colorful nature of many of them, make the book quite interesting, and even fascinating in many places. A significant weakness of this approach, though, is that none of this material is drawn from actual field study. While Fraser had made trips to Italy and Greece, that was the extent of his travels. Whatever knowledge of primitive peoples he had was derived either from secondary sources, from older primary sources such as ancient Greek and Roman historians or early folklorists like the Brothers Grimm and Sir Walter Scott, and especially from questionnaires sent to missionaries and British colonial officials. In no case did any of these sources make a serious study of any of the phenomena he was describing in its cultural and social context. This makes Frazer's obvious erudition much less useful for his purpose than he imagined.
The drawbacks of this work at the theoretical, explanatory level grow out of the empirical weakness. Frazer's explanations of the supposed "reason" for any given practice are exercises in armchair speculations invariably based on what Evans-Pritchard (whose own study --which I read about a year after this one, and which I highly recommend to readers interested in this subject-- is highly critical of the work of Frazer and several other writers of his ilk) rightly characterizes as the "if I were a horse" fallacy. That is, the logic runs something like, "Well, if I were a horse [or a "primitive man"], I would do the kind of things horses [or "primitive men"} do for X reason(s); ergo, that's obviously why they do them." (Frazer and his contemporary colleagues, of course, were neither horses nor primitive men, and they were pretty much equally as clueless about how to enter into the mind of one as the other.) A related problem is the assumption that once we determine (or at least ascribe) an origin and meaning to any symbol or practice in one culture, then it can be taken as an automatic given that any similar symbol or practice in widely disparate cultures necessarily has essentially the same origin and meaning in every one of them. (It can't be automatically taken so, in my opinion.) I could voice a lot of other quibbles about speculative interpretations that aren't nearly as self-evident as Frazer thinks they are, such as his theory that the mock "slayings" of pseudo-sacrificial figures in certain cults in historical times were always vestigial survivals of real sacrifices in prehistoric times (rather than having been mock enactments of seasonal vegetative "deaths" and "resurrections" from the get-go).
This book is important reading for any academic student, or deeply interested lay reader, in the fields of cultural anthropology, primitive religion(s), or the history of 20th-century social science. But it should not be taken uncritically as a definitive guide to reality in any one of those fields.
July 12, 2022
As Einstein is to physics, Darwin to biology, Marx to social theory and Freud to psychology, so is Sir James G. Frazer to anthropology. The Golden Bough is an ambitious work in which Frazer works with field reports describing superstitions and practices, and theorizes that the folk rituals he discusses can be traced back to ancient times and an annual event in the forest at Nemi. From a contemporary point of view, it can be argued that Frazer’s approach is reductive, and indeed anthropology has largely discredited his work (even as psychological theory has moved beyond Freudian thought). Nevertheless, Frazer’s work supplies the reader with an interesting perspective on such rituals as May Day, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Day.
Acquired 1989
Used book store in Montreal, Quebec
Acquired 1989
Used book store in Montreal, Quebec
September 18, 2013
This is an abridgment of a much larger work by Frazer that compiles, categorizes and interprets the belief systems of very old cultures. It's easy to get overwhelmed by the extensive listing of examples that Frazer provides unless these are viewed as attempts by these cultures to understand and control nature through magical practices. These practices for Frazer appear to manifest deeper structures surrounding human need and fear. In short, Frazer writes, they reflect "the essential similiarities of man's chief wants everywhere and at all times."
On this issue of causality, Frazer believes there's a progression from magic to religion to science. As the editor and abridger of Frazer, Gaster is critical of that point of view, stating that it "has now been shown to be a mere product of late nineteenth-century evolutionism, without adequate basis." But how Frazer's perspective is without merit is not clear. In his commentary, Gaster's general criticisms seem obtuse or nitpicky and, at times, he seems like he is trying to preserve a special place for religion, as distinct from primitive magic. Given this, it's hard not to wonder what of Judaism and Christianity Gaster left out of this abridgment. For Frazer's part, science is much in use these days relative to earlier times and that is likely his point, even though a good part of humankind still believes in forces from an unseen world that are propitiated by prayer and such. Gaster is also critical of Frazer's sources of information, suggesting that the Golden Bough rests on a somewhat flimsy ground, even though Frazer extensively documents his studies, drawing from well-known and well-cited sources (e.g., Pliny, Boas, Plutarch, Herodotus, Schoolcraft, Hume, Ovid, Livy, Plato). And, in contrast to Gaster's various authoritative assertions about Frazer's opinions, Frazer offers his specific interpretations with some humility, suggesting an openess to alternative explanations. "All our theories" of primitive man, Frazer states, "fall far short of certainty; the utmost we can aspire to in such matters is a reasonable degree of probability."
This (700 page, plus) abridgment is rich in detail on the practices of earlier humans and Frazer's interpretation of their meaning seems reasonable enough. In my view, they are more understandable and perhaps more probable than, say, Campbell's explanations.
On this issue of causality, Frazer believes there's a progression from magic to religion to science. As the editor and abridger of Frazer, Gaster is critical of that point of view, stating that it "has now been shown to be a mere product of late nineteenth-century evolutionism, without adequate basis." But how Frazer's perspective is without merit is not clear. In his commentary, Gaster's general criticisms seem obtuse or nitpicky and, at times, he seems like he is trying to preserve a special place for religion, as distinct from primitive magic. Given this, it's hard not to wonder what of Judaism and Christianity Gaster left out of this abridgment. For Frazer's part, science is much in use these days relative to earlier times and that is likely his point, even though a good part of humankind still believes in forces from an unseen world that are propitiated by prayer and such. Gaster is also critical of Frazer's sources of information, suggesting that the Golden Bough rests on a somewhat flimsy ground, even though Frazer extensively documents his studies, drawing from well-known and well-cited sources (e.g., Pliny, Boas, Plutarch, Herodotus, Schoolcraft, Hume, Ovid, Livy, Plato). And, in contrast to Gaster's various authoritative assertions about Frazer's opinions, Frazer offers his specific interpretations with some humility, suggesting an openess to alternative explanations. "All our theories" of primitive man, Frazer states, "fall far short of certainty; the utmost we can aspire to in such matters is a reasonable degree of probability."
This (700 page, plus) abridgment is rich in detail on the practices of earlier humans and Frazer's interpretation of their meaning seems reasonable enough. In my view, they are more understandable and perhaps more probable than, say, Campbell's explanations.
September 11, 2012
An anthropological "classic" that has been more or less discredited. Sir James Frazer's encyclopedic writing mixes every culture and every practice into his own bizarre quilt of ritual and meaning. It's a surreal read and has inspired me on many levels. Reading this is a great reminder that ALL cultures began in magic and myth and ritual.
Read
April 24, 2008nonfiction,mythology
Currently reading
June 23, 2011If I had read this when I was young I would have taken different directions in my spiritual life. But I am glad I am reading it now - much to learn.
May 28, 2012
Far out stuff in this book....
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews